One of the worst case scenarios, and likely, is that collapse happens because of war and resource conflicts. In this case human agency through war will mask the environmental instabilities that are the underlying cause. If that happens we don't learn anything from moving through the consequences as it will all be framed mainly as a result of the human disruptions..... instead of driven by natural consequences and understood as such.

Such a scenario will be a wasted opportunity for cultural transition. No collective humility offered on the alter of our mother earth.

Damn, this is the most pessimistic and dreary paragraph I have written here on this site in 14 years!

Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Apeblog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/website: http://www.mounttotumas.com

Ibon wrote:One of the worst case scenarios, and likely, is that collapse happens because of war and resource conflicts. In this case human agency through war will mask the environmental instabilities that are the underlying cause. If that happens we don't learn anything from moving through the consequences as it will all be framed mainly as a result of the human disruptions..... instead of driven by natural consequences and understood as such.

I agree with that. Those waiting for some global epiphany (and I know you're one of them) are likely to be disappointed.

HALL OF SHAME:-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.

OTOH, those with "comfort, privilege and reason" also have property laws, law enforcement agencies, and armed forces up to and including nuclear weapons. The USA and Russia are definately Plutocracies. If you do NOT think that the two "Big Weenie" Plutocrats Putin and Trump are acting in concert to manipulate NATO and the UN, please raise your hand.

I just don't see a worldwide collapse, ever. I definately DO think the "Long Emergency" began around the first OPEC oil embargo, and will continue to advance incrementally for another century at least. We all know those parts of the World which are already in collapse. In another century, that will include China, Russia, and the USA. The next major player to fall will be the EU, iMHO - and I think it will go within 30-40 years. Before then, both France and Germany will exit the EU, and those acts will invoke collapse in all the other countries in Europe. By then, Britain will be an armed island garrisoned with US and Canadian troops, to defend against refugees from the EU.

Although WW3 is possible, the USA and Russia will continue the long, slow dance of MAD, whose real purpose is to intimidate other countries.

Several things don't look good, not just resources. We are much closer to an employment crisis brought on by artificial intelligence replacing human workers than we are to resource depletion, for instance. As with resource depletion, the unemployment crisis doesn't need to happen, it's just that it will unless the right steps are taken. If the world keeps going forward without planning first it will end in catastrophe. I think a similar fate will befall it if the planning is not well thought out.

I don't think that slapping a universal basic income over the jobs problem will work, in other words. That wouldn't put a stop to the inequality which has allowed the existence of the technology that will create the problem to cause the problem in the first place. It's the inequality which has driven the investment and implementation decisions which have brought this world upon us. It's not happening because the technology has come into existence. It's happening because the only way we have to distribute the profits gained by it is to the few, and not the many. A universal basic income won't fix this. It is only a form of largess which would come with strings attached. People in a democracy need to be able to vote not only with their ballots, but also with their money. They need to be able to take on risk, and receive the reward for having done so when the ideas that compel them to take those risks succeed. The universal basic income is a recipe for perpetually folding the economic engine into the camp of the already perceived winners. It would destroy vitality.

Something very bad could be on the horizon with money. As people lose their jobs they will default on their loans. The money supply is built from debt. When people default in large numbers it destroys money. Already there is huge danger out there. Take a situation like Uber, for instance. A great many people are driving for them, who owe a lot of money. If artificial intelligence were to replace drivers in, say, five years, all of those Uber drivers would be out of work almost overnight. I don't think it would actually take very long to roll out entire fleets of self-driving cars. The fleet model is already the one that the huge capitalized interested are saying they will pursue, over individual ownership. If fifteen other similar things also happen at the same time, look at the speed of change and how fast that is changing, then a lot of debt may be threatened with cancellation. It's easy to imagine fast food outlets not having employees anymore, as robots could flip burgers. Accounting and finance are just algorithms, which artificial intelligence is pretty good at replacing. The resultant blow to the money supply would be immense.

So the fleet model is an example of the sort of thinking I'm talking about that represents what the current distribution of profits will engender. They aren't talking about selling small self-driving fleets to individuals or s corps. They are talking about Uber cornering the market, all of a sudden, by owning all of the cars that drive for it. The cost of upkeep may derail that plan, but it wouldn't necessarily derail the plan that Ford has to do the same. Ditto the new Daimler BMW joint agreement I read about somewhere today, whose goal is to develop the fleet model for them on a shared between them basis. Regardless, individual ownership looks doomed, or relegated to the anachronistic. You are expected to call for your transport with an app, provided by one of the small number of firms which will be the only remaining actual owners of cars at that time, for the purpose of only using it to get from one immediate place to another.

Imagine what this sort of thing will do to thinking and individuality. Add what social media can do to homogenize people, and it is a recipe for the kind of society that doesn't need a tyrant in charge to be a tyranny. In a world like that people need choice to exercise freedom. The universal basic income, provided as it is currently being thought about, as a means to enable people to consume when they don't have incomes would only add to the bottom lines of those who own the fleets. The idea is to support the thing by taxing the fleet owners. That's a good way to take inventiveness out of the human equation. People may quit thinking for themselves, and begin to parrot whatever their phones tell them is right to think. Those who step out of line, who argue for more individuality, what would happen to them?

I still dislike the term A.I., because what computers have that people do not have is not intelligence. The real problem is that lots of people have way too little intelligence themselves.

Nobody entering into this debate has anything to worry about. But one of the things that went along with the basic Christian system of thoughts and values was a work ethic, since lost in the decades-long sectarian slide.

I was reminded of this when one of my long-time friends went through a Leukemia scare with his kid. She made it, but years of chemo took their toll, she is no longer the bright and inquisitive youngster she once was. "Don't worry" her parents told her, "You can always get a job as a teacher."

That's the problem, not enough kids in STEM curricula. Yet even when they get lazy, and say "I'm no good at Math", they are also not willing to work at manual labor, an assembly line, or to apprentice in a trade. Without a work ethic, they think they can pursue some LAS curriculae, learning nothing whatsoever that anybody will pay them for, and then enjoy life with a paycheck.

Well, try telling an employer you don't "want to do" anything, and then act surprised when you find yourself on the street. They pay you to do things they need done, and not what you want to do. It is called "work" after all, and not called "play".

If you are not gonna get a STEM degree, and also not gonna apprentice in some blue collar job, then go live in your parents basement, just don't reproduce is all I ask.

Now those of you who still work, go to work, pay your taxes, and support those drones. When push comes to shove, we can put a bounty on their scalps, and have some sport. Those that pay taxes need not worry, you will get the hunting permits.

As I recall the Limits to Growth report said that the models/graphs could not be trusted once one of the major trend lines started to break bad. Ther would be too much interaction between the various factors, things become chaotic in the downside. I think that’s about correct.

And as with all things chaotic the down side slope may not be smooth but a jagged ride of ups and downs generally trailing down.

As Tanada said elsewhere, time for prevention is past, start worrying about adaption. Which really means survival, cause you can’t adapt if your dead.

One more problem I would like to point out which could cause a collapse. The end of the traditional family. Not so long ago almost any man could have a family if he had a job and provided for the family but nowadays things have changed. Woman do not need a provider any more . In social meda an average male is not attractive even if he has a job. There is a massive amount of sexually frustrated men out there. They choose to LDAR(lay down and rot) because of it.

If your identity as a male is to be the provider and think that is sufficient in a relationship well you might as well just lay down and rot. Women rightfully demand some emotional sophistication out of their partner....

Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Apeblog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/website: http://www.mounttotumas.com

If your identity as a male is to be the provider and think that is sufficient in a relationship well you might as well just lay down and rot. Women rightfully demand some emotional sophistication out of their partner....

This brings a whole new level to our discussions: What women want?

I still don't know. I hope the women know, because someone has to know.

Yonnipun wrote:One more problem I would like to point out which could cause a collapse. The end of the traditional family. Not so long ago almost any man could have a family if he had a job and provided for the family but nowadays things have changed. Woman do not need a provider any more . In social meda an average male is not attractive even if he has a job. There is a massive amount of sexually frustrated men out there. They choose to LDAR(lay down and rot) because of it.

Yes, of course. Just like every geek who had trouble impressing women just always lies down and dies. You find them all over college campuses in the technical labs, for example.

Funny, it happened to me every year from age 6 to 18, until I met my long term girlfriend. Finding my corpse every year REALLY confused the authorities.

Why not learn something productive or get a life instead of regaling this site with such nonsense?

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

Why not learn something productive or get a life instead of regaling this site with such nonsense?

It is not a nonsense. Getting sex is the most important thing for a male there could be. Haven t you heard about guys who shoot up schools? Most of them had no luck with girls and where bullied. There number of those males is constantly rising. 40% under 40 years old in germany are single. Why is that? Because woman make so much money on their own they do not want to settle down for a beta male. Also haven t you heard about the divorce rate which is over 50% and men get ablsolutely robbed. They lose half of their assets and have to pay alimony.

Generally speaking, women are more motivated to have and enjoy sex within a emotional relationship, whether it's a real relationship or imagined one. If you are a guy who wants to "have game" with women, you need to understand that.

There's a lot of talk surrounding jobs of the future. Some people are saying that machines can't take over everything. They'll just take over the mundane. Except that machines are pretty good at most things sophisticated as well. Even the most inventive new human niche, the online click rated personality (where I think many people will seek refuge), can be done pretty well by machines. It is being said that certain highly specialized tasks will probably continue to be done by people. It's a sucker's game to get into most things, though. People will still work, but many fewer of them will.

I think the answer to the rise of artificial intelligence is to change the way ownership of large corporations is divided. I believe that classes of stocks should be set up to compete with each other. It should be rock, paper, scissors. No winner ever wins outright. Each class of stock simply has more say over a certain set of things pertaining to the welfare of a corporation. Those classes of stocks ought to represent the natural interests of those most likely to buy them, via what you can expect from the risk/return ration that underlies them, and they should affect other interests with their collective decisions. It's the right way to divide up the money that won't be paid to employees anymore.

The answer has to start with fixing the political process. I don't get the sense that politicians are at all interested in calmly coming up with rational policy responses to the world's problems. The political process tends to reward those who are thinking solely about selfish short-term interests or are on the dole from big-business. I also don't think the general public has the mental skills or civic-mindedness to come up with solutions either. They merely move from outrage to outrage which tends to result in demagoguery.

HALL OF SHAME:-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.

The answer has to start with fixing the political process. I don't get the sense that politicians are at all interested in calmly coming up with rational policy responses to the world's problems. The political process tends to reward those who are thinking solely about selfish short-term interests or are on the dole from big-business. I also don't think the general public has the mental skills or civic-mindedness to come up with solutions either. They merely move from outrage to outrage which tends to result in demagoguery.

At least America is not a homogeneous society. A lot of people would dispute that, saying that American society was built by and for white men, but I think that's wrong. The freedom that Americans have enjoyed has always segmented society into groups which compete with one another. Innovation is the most defining characteristic of this competition, not racial dominance. Americans have rewarded innovation above privilege. American classes are mostly monetary in nature. Privilege does play some role, but the best it has ever been able to achieve is to install perfunctory players who dominate only as well as civil servants within an economy. Their role changes with economic and social development, and is economically vulnerable to machines. The best result is a symbiosis, not a top down dominance by those who've been the best innovators. That's always been best because no matter what the winners have done to make innovativeness heritable, it has still come mostly out of nowhere.

The answer has to start with fixing the political process. I don't get the sense that politicians are at all interested in calmly coming up with rational policy responses to the world's problems. The political process tends to reward those who are thinking solely about selfish short-term interests or are on the dole from big-business. I also don't think the general public has the mental skills or civic-mindedness to come up with solutions either. They merely move from outrage to outrage which tends to result in demagoguery.

And so was a traditional family. Being a provider is not sufficient for having a family anymore. The amount of young males who have no girfriend is rising day by day. What could possibly motivate those guys to work their butts off? Certainly not a lecture by a white collar who has never done a physical work in his life.

they are also not willing to work at manual labor, an assembly line

Why should anyone today in 2019 be working on some s..t job that takes a toll on your health when machines could do the job better. Is not it a programming question nowadays? Young people today are concerned about their health and will not sacrifice it for a penny breathing in toxic fumes and dust and dying too young from cancer or smth.

I still dislike the term A.I., because what computers have that people do not have is not intelligence. The real problem is that lots of people have way too little intelligence themselves.

One thing about smart people I dislike is...

I

f you are not gonna get a STEM degree, and also not gonna apprentice in some blue collar job, then go live in your parents basement, just don't reproduce is all I ask.

They would go full hitler if they got a chance. If I were Iq 120+ then I would go also but unfortunately I am not.Also if a guy manages to reproduce living in the parents basement then he must be a genius in some way and he has a right to reproduce. After all women are those who decide who have a right to reproduce or not and in today s society we can say they are better in it than hitler ever was.

If your identity as a male is to be the provider and think that is sufficient in a relationship well you might as well just lay down and rot. Women rightfully demand some emotional sophistication out of their partner....

You my friend are so bluepilled... Most men in relationships are providers. If a better provider comes then by-by. Divorce rate is over 50%. Women will leave with half the money and men have to pay alimony for decades. Marriage is a business project for women nowadays. Many of those guys end up homeless in the street. That is also a reason why many men are choosing to go on their own way ( MGTOW ). Always remember - she is not yours, it is just your turn. Many men unfortunately think that there is such thing as love and they go crazy when the woman leaves for a better one. Many get even suicidial. The thing is - women are pragmatics pretending to be romantics, men are romantics pretending to be pragmatics.

This brings a whole new level to our discussions: What women want?

I still don't know. I hope the women know, because someone has to know.

When they are young and choosing a mate they want absolutely top genetics. When they hit a wall they will settle down. But they will never love their husband. They do it for the money just like monkeys do change food for sex.

Generally speaking, women are more motivated to have and enjoy sex within a emotional relationship, whether it's a real relationship or imagined one. If you are a guy who wants to "have game" with women, you need to understand that.

It is much simpler. Whether you are attractive or not. I am a male and from my perspective I find almost any woman attractive. M(f)ake up makes wonders. But from woman s perspective only very small percent of males are attractive. Tall , muscular, full head of hair , robust bone stucture etc etc. I would not blame them for that. If I were a woman I would do that also. Men who are not attractive get woman too by providing but as I said the woman can not love the man.When it comes to emotions then actually I would say never show your emotions to your woman. Never say you love her etc. It makes you weak in her eyes and no woman wants a weak man. They want to feel protected.

Except that machines are pretty good at most things sophisticated as well.

Yep , it should be a simple programming question. There is a massive amount of civil cervants who are not neto tax payers whose jobs should be automized. Teachers, doctors etc who are simple pen pushers should be automized.